Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]
Rossell v. Volkswagen of America | 450 A.2d 984 (Super.Pa. 1981)
To recover in a products liability action based on negligence, a plaintiff must prove that a manufacturer breached its duty of care. Generally, such a breach occurs when the manufacturer’s conduct creates a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm. In Rossell versus Volkswagen of America, the Arizona Supreme Court considered whether expert testimony was needed to establish that a car manufacturer’s conduct presented such a risk of harm.
Late one evening in nineteen seventy, Phyllis Rossell fell asleep at the wheel of her nineteen fifty-eight Volkswagen Beetle. While asleep, her car drifted off the road and hit a road sign, jolting Rossell awake. But as she attempted to steer the car back onto the road, she jerked the wheel too hard, causing the car to flip and land on its roof at the bottom of a cement culvert.
Rossell’s eleventh-month-old daughter, Julie, was in the front passenger seat at the time. The force of the accident shifted and broke the car’s battery, which was located inside the car’s passenger compartment. Subsequently, the broken battery slowly dripped sulfuric acid on Julie for several hours until Rossell regained consciousness, causing Julie to suffer serious burns.
Rossell, on behalf of Julie, then brought a products liability action based on negligence against Volkswagen of America in state superior court. In the action, Rossell claimed that Volkswagen negligently designed the car’s battery system by placing the battery inside the car’s passenger compartment. Specifically, Rossell argued that by placing the battery inside the passenger compartment, Volkswagen created an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of harm and that alternative designs were available and feasible. Further, Rossell had two expert witnesses testify that most car batteries were located outside the car’s passenger compartment.
The case proceeded to trial, and the jury found for Rossell, awarding her damages. Volkswagen then moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or J N O V, arguing that Rossell failed to make out a prima facie case for negligence. Specifically, Volkswagen argued that Rossell failed to produce expert testimony to substantiate her claims that Volkswagen breached its duty of care.
The superior court denied the motion and entered judgment for Rossell. Volkswagen appealed to the court of appeals, which reversed. The court concluded that, to establish that Volkswagen breached its duty of care, Rossell needed to provide expert testimony that its conduct presented a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm. The Arizona Supreme Court granted cert to review.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
